Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Leonard Clampett,

can you point out where anyone around here wrote or somehow conveyed the opinion “that governments can, and will, do no wrong”? The fact that contrails can persist and spread doesn’t have the slightest impact on the morality of governments ...

Do you doubt the basic mechanism of cloud formation that I summarized exists? Then please explain where I got it wrong - or the University of North Carolina that I linked to - or all my flight teachers and the text books for the exam - or all the guide books about clouds.
Be specific, don’t just say “misinformation” without giving any reason. By all means, show some actual “scrutiny”, along with references.

Of course I could have introduced dry and saturated lapse rate, condensation nuclei and many more sophisticated details, but that does not alter the principal mechanism of rising, cooling and increasing RH.

By the way, your credentials are not helping, I’m afraid - at least as long as you display a basic misunderstanding of central processes like combustion or supersaturation (which you claim doesn’t even exist).

By Josh on 2014 09 27 - 07:31:30
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thanks mate, greatly appreciated.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 09 24 - 22:27:31
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I know you don’t buy it, but the whole thing seems very much manufactured. Even the footage and the stories.
Anyways, great work as always. Keep on this topic. I believe it is the defining moment for the future of the middle east. 

I am about to subscribe smile  For the years of your hard work.. Well done mate..

By Shaun on 2014 09 24 - 17:53:41
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I don’t believe the ISIS propaganda Shaun, but I do believe these are real people dressed in black who are killing lots of innocent people in Syria. This is not a fiction. Cheers.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 09 24 - 16:31:57
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.

I am drawn back to read further nonsense every time I receive a note to advise that somebody has responded to a relevant post. Rosa Koire Speech about Agenda 21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qLUQlmBk4 When you read and hear commonsense it makes you think. For Hereward Fenton and the other government shills on this site who insist that governments can, and will, do no wrong, compare the Agenda 21 list of goals to the 8 steps of Carl Marx listed in his Communist Manifesto. None of the claims by Josh or others regarding “lingering” chemtrails stand up to scrutiny so far. Josh’s simplistic dreams about cloud formation and “lingering” contrails are just that. I note some claims about wanting a pilot to comment, but apparently my comments as an Airline Transport Pilot of 14,000 hours and Aircraft Maintenance Engineer do not suit his misinformation, or outright ignorant, position. When the realisation hits these people, I wonder if they will understand what is being done to us all in the name of the New World Order?

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 09 23 - 17:22:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

you ask: “Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?”

Very good question, and one that should be answered before assuming all kinds of bad things.

Approaching fronts are the most frequent cause of rain. During their approach, they lift the current air mass. Lifting always means cooling (see “lapse rate”), and cooling means rising the relative humidity because cooler air can hold less water vapor. So even while containing the same absolute amount of water, cooling air approaches the point where the relative humidity reaches 100%.

This is the “dew point” - at that moment you get clouds because the water vapor condenses.

Now when a plane comes by and passes through the lifted moist air, shortly before the dew point is reached - then it is obviously much more likely to create a contrail because the conditions for trails are a lot better than usual, and it continuosly contributes water vapor (from the fuel combustion) along its path which adds to the existing humidity, triggering a trail and probably the start of a haze layer.*

This phase may last several hours, especially with warm fronts.

There is a nice schematics of “lifting mechanisms” on this page from NC State University.

Your next question is not quite reasonable. Why should anyone have to prove the non-existence of ongoing geo-engineering? It’s clearly required to prove its existence in the first place before making accusations. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Patents are no evidence for anything. It’s easy to get one, you don’t have to build anything or even show that your invention actually works.

I’m sure there is a lot of rot that must be stopped. I just don’t think it’s where you assume it is.


* Footnote: the whole thing gets a bit more complicated when ice comes into play.

By Josh on 2014 09 23 - 04:15:04
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hi Josh
I don’t need any more evidence. I need answers.
Why are there so many of these trails when rain is likely or predicted?
How about the people at the helm, the political minitures, sign documents at their own unlimited commercial liability saying the there is no Geoengineering happening? Lets see if they have the guts to do that. If not, why not? Is something being hidden? Why are there near 150 patents for chemical weather remediation? Lots of whys and you wish to dampen the fire of resistance. I guess fluoride and vaccinations are no problem either?
The rot must be stopped and it won’t be by sitting on our hands.
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 09 20 - 19:23:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

weather patterns are changing, something scientists have predicted would happen for quite a while.

How is that relevant in the debate about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2014 09 20 - 17:24:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

before initiating a petition, you want to be sure that the issues you list are real.

What you need is a sample from a contrail, taken in the presence of witnesses, analyzed in a lab to show all components contained. Pointing to Youtube videos as evidence will not be enough. How do you know that the video creators got it right?

The original meme of Chemtrails is that any trail that is not short-lived must be something else, and that persistent trails are something new. As shown before, both of these are wrong assumptions.

It’s just a matter of the favorable atmospheric conditions, and has been observed since the first airplanes were able to reach high altitudes.

So why assume that persistent contrails are something evil in the first place?

By the way, HAARP and weather modification (rain making) were stacked upon the first claims only later. However, cloud seeding is known since the 1940s and has never been a secret or been applied on a larger scale.

HAARP had interacted with the ionosphere which has no influence on the troposphere far below (where the weather happens). It is being dismantled right now.

What’s left are countless images and videos of contrails, sun dogs, haze layers. Would you accept if officials tell you these are all effects of tiny ice crystals?

If not, then what would you be prepared to accept?

By Josh on 2014 09 20 - 17:22:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Tom Jones: Thank you for taking the time to read my post. You are correct when you say that the term ‘anti-semite’ is the wrong way to address the issue of Jew hatred. The semites comprise of four ethnic groups, including Jews, Arabs, Phoenicians and Armenians, yet somehow it’s been branded as Jewish. It’s a little bit like the word gay, meaning happy. It means happy but because it has been popularised as relating to homosexual people, now people think that before it’s intended meaning. Semite evokes thoughts of Jews, regardless of its history.

Wikipedia defines thought crimes as “....an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts.” It would be punishable in the movie 1984, but I think we’d be hard pressed to see it happening in a free nation like Australia. On the other hand, I don’t think you can fairly say that words and speech are harmless. After all, Hitler forged the third reich with words. Words put millions of people in gas chambers and caused a war affecting the entire world. Had he been thrown (and kept) in jail, it is doubtful such a catastrophe would have happened. This flip flop wearing camera wielding big mouth obviously doesn’t have the political cunning of Adolf, but it was clear in his films that he intended to collect followers to harm Jews in unknown ways. But he did mention his will to throw them in work camps - sensitive huh? Brendan was intending to use words to villify and harm a particular group of people, that happened to be Jews and that is why he was jailed.

So no, I don’t think three years of maximum security confinement is a suitable prison term for him, unless it cured him of his prejudices and will to be a public menace.

antisemite: of all the Jews I’ve met, it seems they are more ‘anti-stupid’ than anything else. But nobody said you have to like them, just that in Australia the rule is live and let live, so follow the law at least.

By Jakob on 2014 09 19 - 01:55:56
From the entry 'Meet Brendon O'Connell, Australia's first political prisoner'.

Categories